There's some interesting info here and on other sites about the quality of health care and associated costs in various countries - it's always interesting to note that people in those countries with solid public health care programs (socialism, I suppose) generally enjoy better health. See also the education stats. I know we love our USA, but we aren't too good at taking care of our fellow citizens.
I think that our country is certainly in deep trouble, and maintaining the status quo obviously wasn't going to solve a thing. These stats are shameful in some cases. I wish we were a nation of people who cared deeply about the common good. Selfishness rules in the USA...how sad, but true....
Nancy ~
I respectfully disagree. The World Health Organization website (a branch of the U.N.) has some interesting statistics that put the U.S. in a poor light regarding health care but I believe that collides with reality. You can bend statistics any way you want to acheive a desired result. Waiting times to see a doctor or undergo a required medical test and patient satisfaction should be considered when stating - as the WHO website statistics do - that other countries employing a government-run health care system are somehow better for patients using the system. If that was in the WHO statistics, I missed it. Wealthy people from all over the world come to the United States for operations and treatment. That should tell us something. If their government-run health care systems were so great, why would they want to come here? How many medical breakthroughs have some of these European and Asian countries had in recent years? The tax burden in some counties with a government-run health care system are all but confiscatory. I doubt you'll see that in the WHO statistics.
This is why I strongly reject the notion that because we don't (
yet) have a government-run health care system in the U.S., we're allegedly 'selfish'. America has a great health care system, the best in the world by some measures. The issue is how we
pay for our health care. I submit that simply 're-distributing' health care will not improve it, but degrade it by adding millions to the system with fewer and fewer doctors, nurses and support personnel to take care of all the patients, not to mention the over-burdening of the physical facilities such as hospitals and other wellness operations, such as clinics. The projected cost of the 'ObamaCare' plan will be more than
one trillion dollars over the next ten years. The taxes needed to pay for it will be onerous and likely far more than we're paying for our 'private' medical insurance, now. Remember, employers won't be covering the bulk of the premiums anymore once Obamcare fully kicks in. In fact, once private insurers are out of the picture (guaranteed to happen) and we're all on the government insurance plan with absolutely no option, including paying for your treatment with your own funds, the costs will rise substantially. The fact is that rationing of 'medical resources' will become a reality, resulting in the withholding of once-routine procedures such as follow-up MRI scans and procedures to repair facial nerve damage that some AN patients need. Folks over 65 (
like me) will simply be denied once obtainable procedures. Our age and 'productivity' will be measured against the cost of the procedure, the patient's expected lifespan and whether someone much younger might benefit from a similar procedure. Who do you suppose will be denied the procedure? This unfortunate scenario is inevitable when you add millions to an already over-burdened health care system.
I agree that our country is is 'deep trouble' but I suspect we might disagree on what that trouble is and why. There were lots of options to 'fix' our current health care system but these were ignored by politicians that were determined to institute a government-run health care system, even when the polls (and some contentious congressional representative's 'Town Hall' meetings, last summer) showed that a majority of Americans - around 85% - were quite content with their current medical insurance and did not want a government-run health care system. So much for our representatives in Washington doing the 'will of the people'. Now,
that's definitely 'sad but true'.
Finally, allow me to reiterate that the debate over what we call 'ObamaCare', is about
how we
pay for our health care. The costs for that care will substantially rise over time and how these costs are paid will be a major point of contention. Because a larger number of people will be 'covered' and many of those by a government 'subsidy' (in reality, taxpayer money) simply means that you and I will be paying for other people's health care. While I strongly believe in charity and administer my church's 'benevolence' fund which helps many people who cannot afford things they need, that money is given by church members willingly and freely. The IRS handing you a big tax bill to pay for your government-run 'health care insurance' with fines and possible jail time for not paying it is coercion, pure and simple. Oh yes, and the part of the new health care law that will soon
mandate you carry health care insurance that is approved by the government or be fined (which the politicians are now calling 'a tax') is patently unconstitutional, in my opinion, but I'm not an attorney and I could be wrong. We'll soon find out. Although it may not be politically correct, I do not subscribe to the idea that health care is some kind of 'human right'. It's a luxury that most Americans can afford and all Americans have access to, via the local ER and free clinics all over America that serve the indigent. I have been without medical insurance in my lifetime and never thought other people, i.e. 'the government' was obligated to provide it for me, gratis, as some kind of 'right'. However, others have that entitlement mentality and believe other people 'owe' them things. I disagree. Collectivism never works because it goes against human nature. We all want to take care of ourselves and our family. It's called 'personal responsibility'. Well-intentioned people naturally want to help those 'less fortunate' - and we do. America is the most generous country on earth. Every year, our government spends billions in foreign aid - taxpayer money - that helps people in impoverished lands. U.S. private charities dwarf that amount, every year. When disaster strikes anywhere around the world, America is there with whatever help is needed - and we ask nothing in return, so Nancy, in my opinion, your contention that Americans don't care about 'the common good' is mistaken. However, once you start trying to take care of everyone's needs ('the common good') via 're-distributing' other peoples money by coercion (government mandates and enforcement) you get failure, as the experience of some European nations (now going bankrupt) has shown, as well as the complete failure of the communist system in the former Soviet Union. Having now just about worn out my keyboard, I'll leave it at that.
Jim
